Open Stack

Oops forgot the link on BP for versioning templates.

https://blueprints.launchpad.net/trove/+spec/configuration-templates-versionable


On Thu, Oct 3, 2013 at 3:47 PM, Craig Vyvial <cp16net at gmail.com> wrote:

> I have been trying to figure out where a call for the "default"
> configuration should go. I just finished adding a method to get the
> [mysqld] section via an api call but not sure where this should go yet.
>
> Currently i made it:
> GET - /instance/{id}/configuration
>
> This kinda only half fits in the path here because it doesnt really
> describe that this is the "default" configuration on the instance. On the
> other hand, it shows that it is coupled to the instance because we need the
> instance flavor to give what the current values are in the template applied
> to the instance.
>
> Maybe other options could be:
> GET - /instance/{id}/configuration/default
> GET - /instance/{id}/defaultconfiguration
> GET - /instance/{id}/default-configuration
> GET - /configuration/default/instance/{id}
>
> Suggestions welcome on the path.
>
> There is some wonkiness showing this information to the user because of
> the difference in the values used. [1] This example shows that the template
> uses "50M" as a value applied and the configuration-group would apply the
> value equivalent to 52428800. I dont think we should worry about this now
> but this could lead to confusion by a user. If they are a power-user type
> then they might understand compared to a entry level user.
>
> [1] https://gist.github.com/cp16net/6816691
>
>
>
> On Thu, Oct 3, 2013 at 2:36 PM, McReynolds, Auston <amcreynolds at ebay.com>wrote:
>
>> If User X's existing instance is isolated from the change, but there's
>> no snapshot/clone/versioning of the current settings on X's instance
>> (via the trove database or jinja template), then how will
>> GET /configurations/:id return the correct/current settings? Unless
>> you're planning on communicating with the guest? There's nothing
>> wrong with that approach, it's just not explicitly noted anywhere in
>> the blueprint. For some reason I inferred that it would be handled
>> like trove security-groups.
>>
> So this is a great point. There are talks about making the templating
> versioned in some form or fashion. ekonetzk(irc) said he would write up a
> BP around versioning.
>
>
>>
>> On a slightly different note: If the default template will not be
>> represented as a default configuration-group from an api standpoint,
>> then how will you support the ability for a user to enumerate the list
>> of default configuration-group values for a service-type?
>> GET /configurations/:id won't be applicable, so will it be
>> something like GET /configurations/default?
>>
> see above paragraph.
>
>
>>
>>
>>
>> From:  Craig Vyvial <cp16net at gmail.com>
>> Reply-To:  OpenStack Development Mailing List
>> <openstack-dev at lists.openstack.org>
>> Date:  Thursday, October 3, 2013 11:17 AM
>> To:  OpenStack Development Mailing List <
>> openstack-dev at lists.openstack.org>
>> Subject:  Re: [openstack-dev] [trove] Configuration API BP
>>
>>
>> inline.
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Oct 2, 2013 at 1:03 PM, McReynolds, Auston
>> <amcreynolds at ebay.com> wrote:
>>
>> Awesome! I only have one follow-up question:
>>
>> Regarding #6 & #7, how will the clone behavior work given that the
>> defaults are hydrated by a non-versioned jinja template?
>>
>>
>> I am not sure i understand "clone behavior" because there is not really a
>> concept of cloning here. The jinja template is created and passed in the
>> "prepare call" to the guest to write to the default my.cnf file.
>>
>> When a configuration-group is removed the instance will return to the
>> "default" state. This does not exactly act as a clone behavior.
>>
>>
>>
>> Scenario Timeline:
>>
>> T1) Cloud provider begins with the default jinja template, but changes
>>        the values for properties 'a' and 'b'. (Template Version #1)
>> T2) User X deploys a database instance
>> T3) Cloud provider decides to update the existing template by modifying
>>        property 'c'. (Template Version #2)
>> T4) User Z deploys a database instance
>>
>> I think it goes without saying that User Z's instance gets Template
>> Version #2 (w/ changes to a & b & c), but does User X?
>>
>>
>> No User X does not get the changes. For User X to get the changes a
>> maintenance may need to be scheduled.
>>
>>
>>
>> If it's a "true" clone, User X should be isolated from a change in
>> defaults, no?
>>
>>
>> User X will not see these default changes until a new instance is created.
>>
>>
>>
>> Come to think about it, this is eerily similar to security-groups:
>> administratively, it can be beneficial to share a
>> configuration/security-group across multiple instances, but it can
>> also be a nightmare. Internally, it's extremely rare that we wish to
>> apply a database change to multiple tenants at once, so I'd argue
>> at a minimum to support a CONF opt-in for isolation, if not default
>> to it.
>>
>>
>> If i understand this correctly my above statement means that its isolated
>> by default.
>>
>>
>>
>> On a related note: Will the default template for a service-type be
>> represented as a default configuration-group? If so, I imagine it
>> can be managed through the API (or MGMT API)?
>>
>>
>> The default template will not be represented as a configuration group.
>> This could potentially be a good fit but its more of a nice to have type
>> of feature.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> From:  Craig Vyvial <cp16net at gmail.com>
>> Reply-To:  OpenStack Development Mailing List
>> <openstack-dev at lists.openstack.org>
>>
>> Date:  Wednesday, October 2, 2013 10:06 AM
>> To:  OpenStack Development Mailing List <
>> openstack-dev at lists.openstack.org>
>>
>> Subject:  Re: [openstack-dev] [trove] Configuration API BP
>>
>>
>> I'm glad we both agree on most of these answers.
>> :)
>>
>> On Oct 2, 2013 11:57 AM, "Michael Basnight" <mbasnight at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Oct 1, 2013, at 11:20 PM, McReynolds, Auston wrote:
>>
>> > I have a few questions left unanswered by the blueprint/wiki:
>> >
>> > #1 - Should the true default configuration-group for a service-type be
>> >        customizable by the cloud provider?
>>
>> Yes
>>
>> >
>> > #2 - Should a user be able to enumerate the entire actualized/realized
>> >        set of values for a configuration-group, or just the overrides?
>>
>> actualized
>>
>> >
>> > #3 - Should a user be able to apply a different configuration-group on
>> >        a master, than say, a slave?
>>
>> Yes
>>
>> >
>> > #4 - If a user creates a new configuration-group with values equal to
>> >        that of the default configuration-group, what is the expected
>> >        behavior?
>>
>> Im not sure thats an issue. You will select your config group, and it will
>> be the one used. I believe you are talking the difference between the
>> "template" thats used to set up values for the instance, and the config
>> options that users are allowed to edit.
>>  Those are going to be "appended", so to speak, to the existing template.
>> Itll be up to the server software to define what order values, if
>> duplicated, are read / used.
>>
>> >
>> > #5 - For GET /configuration/parameters, where is the list of supported
>> >        parameters and their metadata sourced from?
>>
>>
>>
>> i believe its a db tableŠ someone may have to correct me there.
>>
>> >
>> > #6 - Should a user be able to reset a configuration-group to the
>> >        current default configuration-group?
>>
>> Yes, assuming we have a "default config group", and im not sure we have a
>> concept of that. We have what the install creates, the templated config
>> file. Removing the association of your config from the instance will do
>> this thought.
>>
>> >
>> > #7 - Is a new configuration-group a clone of the then current default
>> >        configuration-group with various changes, or will inheritence be
>> >        utilized?
>>
>> I think clone will be saner for now. But you can edit your group with a
>> PATCH, and that will not clone it. See [1] first paragraph.
>>
>> >
>> > #8 - How should the state of pending configuration-group changes be
>> >        reflected in GET /instances/:id ? How will this state be
>> >        persisted?
>>
>> You are talking about changes that require a restart i believe. I think
>> this falls into the same category as our conversation about minor version
>> updates. We can have a pretty generic "restart required" somewhere there.
>>
>> >
>> > #9 - Reminder: Once multiple service-types and versions are supported,
>> >        the configuration-group will need a service-type field.
>>
>> Most def. You will only be able to assign relevant configs to their
>> service-types, and the /configuration/parameters will need to be typed
>> too.
>>
>> >
>> > #10 - Should dynamic values (via functions and operators) in
>> >          configuration-groups be supported?
>> >          Example: innodb_buffer_pool_size = 150 * flavor['ram']/512
>>
>> Hmmmm. This is quite interesting. But no, not v1. I totally agree w/ the
>> nice-to-have. Good idea though, we should add it to the blueprint.
>>
>> >
>> > My Thoughts:
>> >
>> > #1 - Yes
>> > #2 - Actualized
>> > #3 - Yes
>> > #4 - Depends on whether the approach for configuration-groups is to
>> >        clone or to inherit.
>> > #5 - ?
>> > #6 - Yes
>> > #7 - ?
>> > #8 - ?
>> > #9 - N/A
>> > #10 - In the first iteration of this feature I don't think it's an
>> >          absolute necessity, but it's definitely a nice-to-have. The
>> >          design/implementation should not preclude this from being
>> easily
>> >          added in the future.
>> >
>> > Where "?" == "I'd like to think about it a bit more, but I have a gut
>> > feeling"
>> >
>> > Thoughts?
>>
>> [1]
>>
>> http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2013-October/015919.html
>>
>>
>>  <
>> http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2013-October/015919.ht
>> ml<http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2013-October/015919.html>
>> <
>> http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2013-October/015919.htm
>> l>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> OpenStack-dev mailing list
>> OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> OpenStack-dev mailing list
>> OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> OpenStack-dev mailing list
>> OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/attachments/20131003/e3eeb1a6/attachment.html>